Another person committing the cardinal sins of a) being to the left of Bernie Sanders and Paul Krugman and b) having the temerity to criticize a Democratic President. The dude is smarter than Krugman by a half and still you denigrate him.
All false points dmarks. Unemployment was higher under bush. Republicans are obstructing doing anything about speculators which would lower gas prices, and the national debt is higher due to the bush recession.
All the points were false. We're still in recession because Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the recovery... by refusing to raise taxes (among other things).
This is the bush/Republican recession. Your national debt figure is also bogus. GWb increased the debt 86 percent while BHO has increased it 34 percent so far (debunked by Snopes).
Republicans have historically run up far more debt then Democrats.
What is his strategic vision, wd? Blowing shit up in Pakistan and backing himself in a corner on Afghanistan?............And debt is hugely a bipartisan thing. Yes, Mr. Reagan ran it up but he also had a Democratic Congress for all 8 of his years and a Democratic Senate for 6 of them.............And Clinton didn't start to cut the government % of GDP until he had a Republican House and Senate pushing him. This whole concept of yours of one side being entirely to blame all the frigging time is infantile.
Will: And Clinton didn't start to cut the government % of GDP until he had a Republican House and Senate pushing him.
You're stating as fact your belief that the Republican House and Senate contributed to the Clinton surplus... even though they all voted against his tax increase and predicted armageddon.
I don't buy it.
Will: What is his strategic vision, wd?
Nice try. We were talking about what his "strategic vision" ISN'T. It isn't what this douchebag you quoted says it is.
I believe that Mr. Ferguson was engaging in hyperbole.............What I stated is a fact, wd. The federal budget as a percentage of GDP went down from 23% to 19%. Spending went down significantly during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration and, while I certainly give Mr. Clinton credit for doing that, he probably wouldn't have done it if not for the House Republicans pushing him. You don't agree? You think that Mr. Clinton would have announced that the era of big government was over on his own?
12 comments:
What a douchebag.
Another person committing the cardinal sins of a) being to the left of Bernie Sanders and Paul Krugman and b) having the temerity to criticize a Democratic President. The dude is smarter than Krugman by a half and still you denigrate him.
He's a douchebag. That isn't Obama's "strategic vision" and you know it... or you should if you're half as smart as you claim to be.
Of course he is not George W. Bush. Unemployment, gas prices, and the national debt were a lot lower under Bush.
All false points dmarks. Unemployment was higher under bush. Republicans are obstructing doing anything about speculators which would lower gas prices, and the national debt is higher due to the bush recession.
All true points that I made. For example, the national debt rose 50% under Obama... so far. And since Jan 2009, that has been the Obama recession.
All the points were false. We're still in recession because Republicans are deliberately sabotaging the recovery... by refusing to raise taxes (among other things).
This is the bush/Republican recession. Your national debt figure is also bogus. GWb increased the debt 86 percent while BHO has increased it 34 percent so far (debunked by Snopes).
Republicans have historically run up far more debt then Democrats.
What is his strategic vision, wd? Blowing shit up in Pakistan and backing himself in a corner on Afghanistan?............And debt is hugely a bipartisan thing. Yes, Mr. Reagan ran it up but he also had a Democratic Congress for all 8 of his years and a Democratic Senate for 6 of them.............And Clinton didn't start to cut the government % of GDP until he had a Republican House and Senate pushing him. This whole concept of yours of one side being entirely to blame all the frigging time is infantile.
Yeah, I agree, those Oxford/Harvard/Stanford guys are total douche-bags.
Will: And Clinton didn't start to cut the government % of GDP until he had a Republican House and Senate pushing him.
You're stating as fact your belief that the Republican House and Senate contributed to the Clinton surplus... even though they all voted against his tax increase and predicted armageddon.
I don't buy it.
Will: What is his strategic vision, wd?
Nice try. We were talking about what his "strategic vision" ISN'T. It isn't what this douchebag you quoted says it is.
I believe that Mr. Ferguson was engaging in hyperbole.............What I stated is a fact, wd. The federal budget as a percentage of GDP went down from 23% to 19%. Spending went down significantly during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration and, while I certainly give Mr. Clinton credit for doing that, he probably wouldn't have done it if not for the House Republicans pushing him. You don't agree? You think that Mr. Clinton would have announced that the era of big government was over on his own?
Will: You don't agree? You think that Mr. Clinton would have announced that the era of big government was over on his own?
I agree that he did it to appease Republicans. I disagree that it was a good thing. Everything you listed and view as positive. I view it as all bad.
Post a Comment